Allahabad High Court
Asok Pande vs Shri Rahul Gandhi,Member Of ... on 1 December, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 4 AFR
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11064 of 2015
Petitioner :- Asok Pande
Respondent :- Shri Rahul Gandhi,Member Of Parliament N.Delhi And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Asok Pande [ In Person]
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.,Manish Mathur
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard Sri Asok Pande in person.
Sri Manish Mathur, learned counsel for the Election
Commission and Sri S.B.Pandey, AS.G.I. learned counsel for
the Union of India.
The petitioner contends that the first respondent Sri Rahul
Gandhi is not entitled to represent any constituency or even
contest an election much less be a representative of the
people in the Parliament on the ground that he, according to
the petitioner, has acquired foreign citizenship and therefore
this acquisition clearly disqualifies himself to be a citizen of
India. The allegations are sought to be supported on the
strength of a letter written by Sri Subrmaniyam Swamy and
other documents. The relief is for a writ of quo-warranto.
Sri Asok Pande has argued that Article 9 of the Constitution of
India clearly prohibits such a person who has acquired foreign
citizenship and even otherwise in view of the facts on which
this petition has been filed the citizenship of India as claimed
by the respondent no. 1 does not subsist.
Learned counsel for the respondent Union of India has
opposed the petition and contended that the arguments do
not hold water keeping in view of the provisions of Citizenship
Act, 1955 and the present petition should not be entertained.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties, what we
find is that the law relating to citizenship is governed by the
provisions of Part II of the Indian Constitution and Article 9
clearly provides for the seizure of a citizenship or its
relinquishment on account of any such disqualification.
However, the same according to part two itself is subject to
any law made by the Parliament.
The issue as to whether Article 9 of the Constitution of India
would be attracted came up for consideration before the Apex
Court in the case of State of U.P. And Ors Vs. Shah
Mohammad and Ors 1969 Volume 1 SCC Pg. 771 where it
was clearly ruled that so far as the provisions of Article 9 are
concerned they were framed in relation to acquisition of any
foreign citizenship prior to the commencement of the
Constitution. So far as any acquisition later on is concerned,
the same was left to the Parliament to make a law.
Consequently, the Parliament framed the Citizenship Act,
1955 and Section 9 of the Act reads as under:-
"9. Termination of citizenship-(1) Any citizen of India who by
naturalisation, registration otherwise voluntarily acquires, or has at any
time between the 26 January, 1950 and the commencement of this Act,
voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country shall, upon such
acquisition or, as the case may be, such commencement, cease to be
citizen of India.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a citizen of India
who, during any war in which India may be engaged, voluntarily
acquires, the citizenship of another country, until the Central
Government otherwise directs.
(2) If any question arises as to whether, when or how any[citizen of
India] has acquired the citizenship of another country, it shall be
determined by such authority, in such manner, and having regard to
such rules or evidence, as may be prescribed in this behalf."
A perusal thereof would demonstrate that any citizen of India
would cease to be a citizen if he has voluntarily acquired the
citizenship of a foreign country. Sub (2) provides that if any
question arises as to whether, when or how any citizen of
India has acquired the citizenship of any other country, it shall
be determined by such authority and in such manner and
having regard to such rules of evidence as may be prescribed
in this behalf.
Keeping this end of view, the Apex Court after coming into
force of the 1955 Act has therefore reposed this authority
exclusively in the Central Government under the Citizenship
Act 1955. The issue is no longer res-integra as ruled by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Peer Mohammad A.I.R 1963 Pg.645 which is a
constitution Bench judgment. The matter was reconsidered in
the case of Union of India Vs. Rajiv Gandhi reported in
A.I.R 1986 SCC Pg. 1534.
In view of the aforesaid pronouncements and the provisions
referred to hereinabove there is a clear remedy for redressal
of any such grievance before the Central Government keeping
in view the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act
1955 provided the same has already not been determined.
In our opinion if any grievance is to be raised then it has to be
dealt with by the second respondent in accordance with law
as indicated herein above if the issue was not raised or
decided earlier. A person who may qualify as an aggrieved
person in this regard can approach the said authority.
We may put on record the order of the Apex Court as orally
informed by Sri Mathur in Writ Petition No.195 of 2015 dated
30.11.2015 available on the internet is extracted hereunder:-
"ITEM NO.68 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL(W)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No(s). 195/2015
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ADVOCATE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAHUL GANDHI AND ORS Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for permission to appear and argue in person)
Date : 30/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Petitioner (s) Mr.M.L.Sharma,
Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.
Heard.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)
AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar"
In view of the aforesaid provisions and the above facts, we do
not have any reason to entertain this petition which is hereby
dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.12.2015
Shahnaz
